Home audio reciever

DrBoost wrote: Personally, I'd bump my price up by a little and step up to a used higher-end unit like Rotel, Adcom, Denon, or something like that. I've never liked the sound of a Yamaha, Onkyo is ok but didn't seem to have the depth I wanted, or the nuts to drive a good sub. But I take my home theater a bit more serious than some (not saying anything about you if you own those brands, just a very general statement). I look at this like I do a car. I can buy a new Yaris or something like that, or an older car that I actually WANT to own for the same or less.

The kicker here is that it sounds like he's wanting something to handle video switching as well... Rotel and Adcom are out for anything remotely resembling his budget. Denon is a "maybe" on the used market.

Onkyo or Pioneer is what i'd recommend on the new market.

Receiver doesn't drive your sub, btw... (Unless you're using a full channel with a filter for some reason.... but why would you do that?)

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DrBoost wrote: Personally, I'd bump my price up by a little and step up to a used higher-end unit like Rotel, Adcom, Denon, or something like that. I've never liked the sound of a Yamaha, Onkyo is ok but didn't seem to have the depth I wanted, or the nuts to drive a good sub. But I take my home theater a bit more serious than some (not saying anything about you if you own those brands, just a very general statement). I look at this like I do a car. I can buy a new Yaris or something like that, or an older car that I actually WANT to own for the same or less.

The kicker here is that it sounds like he's wanting something to handle video switching as well... Rotel and Adcom are out for anything remotely resembling his budget. Denon is a "maybe" on the used market. Onkyo or Pioneer is what i'd recommend on the new market. Receiver doesn't drive your sub, btw... (Unless you're using a full channel with a filter for some reason.... but why would you do that?)

What is video switching? What drives the sub?

93EXCivic wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DrBoost wrote: Personally, I'd bump my price up by a little and step up to a used higher-end unit like Rotel, Adcom, Denon, or something like that. I've never liked the sound of a Yamaha, Onkyo is ok but didn't seem to have the depth I wanted, or the nuts to drive a good sub. But I take my home theater a bit more serious than some (not saying anything about you if you own those brands, just a very general statement). I look at this like I do a car. I can buy a new Yaris or something like that, or an older car that I actually WANT to own for the same or less.

The kicker here is that it sounds like he's wanting something to handle video switching as well... Rotel and Adcom are out for anything remotely resembling his budget. Denon is a "maybe" on the used market. Onkyo or Pioneer is what i'd recommend on the new market. Receiver doesn't drive your sub, btw... (Unless you're using a full channel with a filter for some reason.... but why would you do that?)

What is video switching? What drives the sub?

An amp drives the sub. Most receivers don't have an amplified sub stage, so your sub would either have a built in amp, or you'd have some custom wizardry going on.

Video switching means that your receiver handles the video as well. HDMI stuff, for example. What you CAN do is run HDMI to your TV to use it to pass video only, and still handle your audio only through the receiver. But that somewhat negates the main purpose of a receiver, which is to be a "jack of all trades, master of none."

The cool thing about a receiver is that it truly CAN handle everything, if set up and shopped for properly. Beyond that, i'm really not a fan of them.

I run a 2-channel audio system only, in my setup. I pass video via HDMI to my tv, audio is run to my preamp.

Or there's this; http://www.jr.com/denon/pe/DNN_AVR1513/ Some goofy price less than $250, put it in the cart or call to find out!

Or how about this bad mama-jama? http://www.jr.com/sherwood/pe/SHE_RD7503/

I don't own either of them but there's a lot of options with HDMI switching and other functions like that, FROM THE FUTURE, that are available today for $350 or under just like he's asking about! Yow! Seriously, the Sherwood even lists something that sounds like an Audessy function, come on now.

Dude it even comes with an INTUITIVE GUI¡¡¡¡¡

If you have a Fry's nearby, they often advertise "NAME BRAND" receivers for under $300/$200 and sometimes ends up being a pretty decent starter Harmon Kardon, Onkyo or Denon.

I've been wanting a Denon for awhile but can't get myself to pull the trigger on this one http://slickdeals.net/f/4999030-Denon-AVR-2112CI-407-Shipping-27-AC-Electronics-Expo. Still using the hand me down Sony 2 channel I got from my parents. Wood cab, equalizer and 5 disc cd changer and all.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Video switching means that your receiver handles the video as well. HDMI stuff, for example. What you CAN do is run HDMI to your TV to use it to pass video only, and still handle your audio only through the receiver. But that somewhat negates the main purpose of a receiver, which is to be a "jack of all trades, master of none."

When you say pass through do you mean something like this?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Denon+-+550W+5.1-Ch.+3D+Pass+Through+A/V+Home+Theater+Receiver/4792249.p?id=1218529600211&skuId=4792249

I'd rather have superior sound than video switching. I have a TV with HDMI input and a remote that can do anything I need it to. Once I got a good receiver and some good speakers I never turned back.
Life's too short to listen to sub-standard audio

So now I am lost, should I completely stay away from receivers? What would I use instead of a receiver? Halftrac mentioned a preamp.

Any modern decent a/v receiver will have HDMI switching. I would not spend money on a receiver I intended to use for video without it. It's really nice - especially for the wife - to be able to "set and forget" the TV and just use the receiver to switch inputs. With the majority of modern receivers it will scale the non-HDMI inputs and output them on the HDMI so you never have to change a setting on the TV again.

I've always had good luck with Yamaha but the latest one I bought from them - bought based on feature set and lower power usage - ended up having 0.1% THD which is terrible and I can hear it at higher volumes. The regular Yamahas are probably fine and really it's only when the volume is unreasonably high that you can hear it, but I'm picky. I put up with it for now. To avoid this pitfall check the THD.

You should be happy with the sound of almost any good brand receiver. And with a $350 budget you should be able to get HDMI switching and upscaling and good sound.

This one at $249 with free shipping does everything you need:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-STRDH720-Channel-Receiver-Black/dp/B004QOA92A/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1346187032&sr=1-1&keywords=Sony+STR-DH720

I just don't get the percieved need for vid switching. I have a remote control that does all the switching I need without the poor sound quality or the other niggling issues with mose HDMI switching. But that's just me. I put sound quality at the top of the list.

How do I respectfully state that I don't think you can hear an accurately measured full-range-swept .1% THD out of a receiver and not start some kind of argument? Because I don't want to do that and I think this sort of belongs in a different discussion because I think 93EX is getting overwhelmed. I also suggest he ignore the good Mr. Celica's advice on separate components until he really becomes well versed on this subject and can look around for components on his own.

Something else about really inexpensive receivers that do up-conversion; it's probably not that hot and whatever is in the TV is most likely as good or better. HDMI pass through is probably all you're going to really want at this price point.

pres589 wrote: I think 93EX is getting overwhelmed. I also suggest he ignore the good Mr. Celica's advice on separate components until he really becomes well versed on this subject and can look around for components on his own. Something else about really inexpensive receivers that do up-conversion; it's probably not that hot and whatever is in the TV is most likely as good or better. HDMI pass through is probably all you're going to really want at this price point.

Yeah I am getting a little lost.

Also are you saying that the speakers in the TV are better then what you get from a receiver and surround system? A bunch of my friends have those blu-ray surround sound all in one setups and even those beat the regular TV speakers.

No. Up conversion is a process by which a video signal is "given" a higher resolution to better display on todays high definition TV's. This gift of higher resolution has to be done by a combination or software and hardware. This combination is not easy, and the better the job, the more it costs. Up conversion is a video only item here and does not affect audio (well, some places there may be upmixing for audio, let us not consider that at this moment).

A number of lesser cost home audio receivers that have HDMI output will have video inputs that are normally lower resolution, say S-video as an example. There can be up conversion technologies inside the receiver that up convert that analog video stream to a higher resolution digital stream and output it on the HDMI bus and send it to your high definition TV. So the feature is there, however, it may not be a very good implementation (that cost thing again). Many times the DVD or Blu-Ray player can do this upconversion itself. And TV's that accept those same S-Video connections can do this work as well. And from what I have seen from reviews in magazines and such (so grain of salt here) is that the TV's usually do it best when dealing with low cost equipment.

Short version: I wouldn't worry about up conversion or not. HDMI pass through will help keep cabling simple and the TV can do the heavy lifting of up conversion. If you were spending $700 street price or more on a receiver then we would probably use the up conversion that it could do, but we're not, so don't worry about it. HDMI pass through is fine. HDMI 1.4 spec is the most current and would be preferable to 1.3 but I don't think it matters for where you're at in the market, someone else may have a stronger opinion as I do not.

The $250 Sony receiver that was linked to a few replies above would probably be a great unit for what you want, the up conversion may be okay, if not you can still work that out and it won't be a big deal.

93EXCivic wrote:

pres589 wrote: I think 93EX is getting overwhelmed. I also suggest he ignore the good Mr. Celica's advice on separate components until he really becomes well versed on this subject and can look around for components on his own. Something else about really inexpensive receivers that do up-conversion; it's probably not that hot and whatever is in the TV is most likely as good or better. HDMI pass through is probably all you're going to really want at this price point.

Yeah I am getting a little lost. Also are you saying that the speakers in the TV are better then what you get from a receiver and surround system? A bunch of my friends have those blu-ray surround sound all in one setups and even those beat the regular TV speakers.

No, he's saying that if you get a cheapo receiver and use it for video switching you may be disappointed. The sound quality usually is sub par and there is noise introduced into the video stream. I have an older Rotel and has VERY clean power (5.1), a nice monoblock amp for my sub and some good speakers. When I crank up Dire Straits live I can hear someone in the crowd clear his/her voice. It's amazing.
This Rotel or even this Arcam will sound soo, soo much better than new stuff at the same price point.

DrBoost, 93ExCivic is looking for a home theater receiver. He's not looking for an audiophile system. As long as what he gets is "reasonable" in quality he's not going to be disappointed by the sound. The issue with "i have a remote" is that then your wife and kids are left fumbling around with what remote to use to do what, you're left with a pile of remotes or a clumsy universal.

@pres: I think i was off by a factor of ten. Let's skip the distortion discussion though since it's secondary to figuring out what fits 93Civic's needs.

Regarding upconverting and HDMI switching in the receiver: the advantage is that it is simple. That's why it's important for someone that just wants to watch and hear stuff. You set the TV on HDMI1, you plug everything into the receiver and the HDMI output of the receiver into HDMI1 on the TV and you're done. The receiver's remote handles everything and it's both easy and nice. I spent a lot of time researching it when I set up my current system and my wife loves it. Click to turn stuff on and it just works.

Forget distortion, forget Rotel and separates, just get an integrated receiver with HDMI switching and you can set it and forget with really quite decent sound quality. You will not be disappointed. There is no noise in the video stream with HDMI. It either works or doesn't, and with a simple setup it just works.

Oh, and you don't use the speakers in the TV, they are awful. You only use the TV for video and use your separate speakers plugged into the receiver for sound.

Sorry, i was going along with the receiver idea, i may have caused confusion when i explained what i do, which was simply meant to be an example of how you could set something up. Not as a "you should do this instead."

My bad!

Ok so with upconversion and HDMI switching, what am I really missing out on if I don't have it? It is just that I have to do a little bit extra with a remote or? I was originally planning on only using the receiver for audio and I think I would prefer better sound quality over the extra features unless someone can tell me a pretty good reason why I wouldn't.

HDMI is a digital stream, if it's only doing true passthru then it isn't doing any conversion work to the digital stream. It can't be. That's why it's called passthru. HDMI switching is the same thing, it is acting like a router for digital signals, only this time the network is your home theater gear and your TV gets all the information in the end. The receiver is simply ducting that digital data around and will get it to the right place.

It takes a little playing with cables but you can have a pretty simple setup. I would get a basic home receiver that does 5.1 or 7.1 (having unused channels is not a bad thing) like the Sony above or maybe one of the units I linked to and go from there.

Honestly, once you get the receiver, you can come back here if you need to and ask questions about hooking it up, one of the biggest hurdles is where you're at right now.

Go with what your ears tell you. Go wander around the big box stores, compare the sound from different brands. That will tell you a LOT more than a bunch of specs, although as pointed out the THD can be a big deal.

For instance, to me the Sony stuff sounded 'tinny' (remarked the guy with only one good ear who can't truly be considered an audiophile). The Onkyo had a much fuller and richer sound. I could get better sounding stuff than the Onkyo, but my wallet started to smoke; like you I had a price point. After listening to the Panasonic etc, it was no contest. IIRC I wound up paying around $600 for the whole thing; receiver, powered sub, 6 disc DVD changer and 7 speakers. That was ~5 years ago, the stuff has been superb.

dculberson wrote: DrBoost, 93ExCivic is looking for a home theater receiver. He's not looking for an audiophile system. As long as what he gets is "reasonable" in quality he's not going to be disappointed by the sound. The issue with "i have a remote" is that then your wife and kids are left fumbling around with what remote to use to do what, you're left with a pile of remotes or a clumsy universal. @pres: I think i was off by a factor of ten. Let's skip the distortion discussion though since it's secondary to figuring out what fits 93Civic's needs. Regarding upconverting and HDMI switching in the receiver: the advantage is that it is *simple*. That's why it's important for someone that just wants to watch and hear stuff. You set the TV on HDMI1, you plug everything into the receiver and the HDMI output of the receiver into HDMI1 on the TV and you're done. The receiver's remote handles everything and it's both easy and nice. I spent a lot of time researching it when I set up my current system and my wife loves it. Click to turn stuff on and it just works. Forget distortion, forget Rotel and separates, just get an integrated receiver with HDMI switching and you can set it and forget with really quite decent sound quality. You will not be disappointed. There is no noise in the video stream with HDMI. It either works or doesn't, and with a simple setup it just works. Oh, and you don't use the speakers in the TV, they are awful. You only use the TV for video and use your separate speakers plugged into the receiver for sound.

What the heck!! I had a nice, detailed response to this and it just went away!?!? I don't have time for that again so I'll sum up. I do have a higher quality system than many people want. But I too bought a department store system and thought it was good....for a few months. I quickly realized that there was lots of quality on the disc that I wasn't hearing. I went about things VERY GRM. I might have an much into my whole system as the average mid-grade to high receiver costs new. But my demands are higher than some.
I have a Harmony 880 remote. I press one button and the remote does everything. My 5-year old can go between watching DVD's, playing Wii, Netflix, TV, anything. He just presses the single button, once. My system needed to have a high WAF* or it would never have happened.
And those links I sent him, they were in the ball park for what he was looking to spend. For the same money as a Sony (sorry, junk IMHO) he can get a higher end, higher quality unit with a much better sound. If someone came here posting for advice, they wanted a fun car and heard that the Camry has a new V6. We would say "yeah, the Camry V6 is a decent car, but for the same money you could have a miata or E36M3 that will do soo much more for the same money.
Yes a Sony will make sound come out of 6 speaker cabinets, but for the same money there are others that will do it much, much better.
WAF = Wife Approval Factor

I like Marantz. I have two one old 5.1 surround for home theater, one ancient for the shop (as in 40+ years old) They both make pleasing noises when asked to and I cannot bring my self to upgrade to HDMI and such as they work just fine. If you can find one you can afford it shoudl last you a long long time.

So I went to Best Buy and HH Greg and looked around at what they had. Best Buy had one a Denon AVR-1612 as an open box item for $299 and HH Gregg had a Pioneer VSX-1022-K which is normally $450 for $378.

I would buy the Denon. I've had two or three Denon Receivers over the years. I've always liked the sound.

I am always a big fan of buying last year's close out model.

Forgive me if someone already brought this up, but one really stooopid way to tell if it is a decent receiver - look at the weight. Power Supplies. Beefy Heat Sinks. Good Chassis Construction. All of those have weight to them and the heavier they are, probably the better.

Same rule of thumb goes for speakers. Solid Cabinet Construction. Internal Bracing. Good Magnets on the drivers. All have a bit of weight to them.

Forgive me if this was brought up also, rule of thumb, everytime you double an amplifier's output, you only get 3 Decibels at the speaker. 100W amplifier is not going to be noticeably louder than a 75W amplifier. It actually has more to do with the efficiency of the speaker.

I'd get that Pioneer. That's a relatively high end unit. I'll check more into it in the morning.